Our readers write: "Canals are vital to our way of life."

[Puffling]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/29/canals-are-vital-to-our-way-of-life-we-cannot-neglect-them

 

Perhaps a forum member or two had their letter published here?

Edited August 30, 2023 by Puffling

[Victor Vectis]

Good!

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Puffling said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/29/canals-are-vital-to-our-way-of-life-we-cannot-neglect-them

 

Perhaps a forum member or two had their letter published here?

 

Unfortunately I suspect it would need similar letters and articles in papers like the Daily Wail and Torygraph to have much chance of attracting the attention of government, not a lefty liberal woke one like the Grauniad... 😞

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

Unfortunately I suspect it would need similar letters and articles in papers like the Daily Wail and Torygraph to have much chance of attracting the attention of government, not a lefty liberal woke one like the Grauniad... 😞

I've never been sure about that. People who read the Mail, Telegraph or Times are pretty certain to be voting Tory anyway. It's the woke lefty sandal-clad Grauniad readers they need to seduce if they're going to get back into power.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've never been sure about that. People who read the Mail, Telegraph or Times are pretty certain to be voting Tory anyway. It's the woke lefty sandal-clad Grauniad readers they need to seduce if they're going to get back into power.

What I meant is that the current government is unlikely to take much notice of "woke" outrage in the Grauniad letters pages, because many of the letters (which I read every day...) are (rightfully) critical of many of their policies such as treatment of NHS workers, asylum seekers, families with too many bedrooms or children, voter ID, people in social care -- protest about canal funding is just another one to add to the list...

Edited August 30, 2023 by IanD

[Peanut]

But then, all the Civil Servants who advise the ministers, read the Gardian. Kept under the desk.

 

(Maybe, should be in the Politics section.)

[MtB]

10 hours ago, Puffling said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/29/canals-are-vital-to-our-way-of-life-we-cannot-neglect-them

 

Perhaps a forum member or two had their letter published here?

 

Preçis:

 

"The government should carry on spending £400m a year on the canals so we can continue living on our boat."

 

Yes/no? 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

13 minutes ago, Peanut said:

But then, all the Civil Servants who advise the ministers, read the Gardian. Kept under the desk.

 

(Maybe, should be in the Politics section.)

Not since they started asking about your political voting habits at interviews, I suspect!

[adam1uk]

27 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Preçis:

 

"The government should carry on spending £400m a year on the canals so we can continue living on our boat."

 

Yes/no? 

 

The government grant is currently a bit over £52 million a year.

 

I don’t think anyone would turn down £400m a year, though…

[MtB]

50 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

The government grant is currently a bit over £52 million a year.

 

I don’t think anyone would turn down £400m a year, though…

 

Is that all it is? 

 

Divided by 35,000 that's about £1500 from each boater if the grant is lost completely. So why all the fuss?! 

 

 

[adam1uk]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Is that all it is? 

 

Divided by 35,000 that's about £1500 from each boater if the grant is lost completely. So why all the fuss?! 

 

 

That would be doubling what most people pay, and that’s only the start.  The grant has been frozen for the past few years, while inflation has been at 10 per cent, so it’s already had a significant real terms cut.  The future plan is to cut it to £50m in 2027 and then reduce it by 5 per cent a year in cash terms for ten years.  So when you take all that together it makes a huge difference for an organisation with an income of roughly £200m.

 

You could look at it as a percentage of government expenditure, where it’s so infinitesimally small that it barely registers, and wonder why they’re even bothering to cut it.  Particular when their own report said it was good value for money.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

That would be doubling what most people pay, and that’s only the start.

 

Which is exactly what is so badly needed in my opinion, on several fronts.

 

1) To slow down the exponential rise in the number of new boats being launched onto already overcrowded canals

2) To make living aboard less attractive to people with no interest in boating 

3) To help fund the general shortfall in CRT funding

4) To help fund enforcement of the piss-takers that CRT don't seem able to do anything about. For example the boat that's been on the 48hr VMs here since Christmas.

[adam1uk]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Which is exactly what is so badly needed in my opinion, on several fronts.

 

1) To slow down the exponential rise in the number of new boats being launched onto already overcrowded canals

2) To make living aboard less attractive to people with no interest in boating 

3) To help fund the general shortfall in CRT funding

4) To help fund enforcement of the piss-takers that CRT don't seem able to do anything about. For example the boat that's been on the 48hr VMs here since Christmas.

You might be right.  But it might also force a lot of people off the water, and result in a lot of people just not paying — both of which would mean you don’t get the increase in income you expected, and in fact have to spend more chasing it.  And that means to have to charge even more to those who are paying.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

You might be right.  But it might also force a lot of people off the water, and result in a lot of people just not paying — both of which would mean you don’t get the increase in income you expected, and in fact have to spend more chasing it.  And that means to have to charge even more to those who are paying.

 

If you double the licence fee and 25% of boaters sell-up and walk away C&RT would still have 50% more income, and, with 25% less boaters there would be less traffic, fewer lock operations and much less wear & tear on the system, so, there would be a saving in 'boater damage' to the infrastructure.

 

Add in a 3x multiplyer for CCers and 'fat boat' licence fees and the DEFRA grant would be replaced in full.

 

Win Win !

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If you double the licence fee and 25% of boaters sell-up and walk away C&RT would still have 50% more income, and, with 25% less boaters there would be less traffic, fewer lock operations and much less wear & tear on the system, so, there would be a saving in 'boater damage' to the infrastructure.

 

Add in a 3x multiplyer for CCers and 'fat boat' licence fees and the DEFRA grant would be replaced in full.

 

Win Win !

The 25% who sell up, of course, would be the ones who don't get much use out of their boats - those who just use them as a cottage in the marina but rarely venture out. So it wouldn't really reduce traffic much at all - most of which, anyway, is hire boats rather than boaters. As far as I can tell from my various moorings over the years, 60% of boats never move at all, maybe 20% go for an ocasional day out, 10% go for a couple of weeks in the summer. Which leaves 10% maybe doing six or seven weeks a year. Losing a quarter of that lot, you wouldn't notice the difference in moving traffic.

As most (not all, he said hurriedly) continuous cruisers are really continuous moorers, moving maybe fifteen times a year, they don't do a lot of damage to the infrastructure either.

But if all the ones who gave up were on CRTs overpriced longterm moorings, they'd lose more than they'd gain. It's not just licences we pay.

[Quattrodave]

Aye, but if you double the licence fee then I fear there would suddenly be a lot more 'piss-takers' not out of choice but out of necessity.

[Alan de Enfield]

38 minutes ago, Quattrodave said:

'piss-takers'

 

In which case they either 'pay-up' or get off the pot !

 

(Or C&RT remove the 'pot')

[Arthur Marshall]

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In which case they either 'pay-up' or get off the pot !

 

(Or C&RT remove the 'pot')

15 years later? And that's only if you stay put. Take the name and number off your boat and move about a bit and how can CRT ever track you down to remove the boat?

The only solution would be for a CRT hit squad, towing every boat not showing a licence to a secure site and scrapping the boat four weeks later. I'm not sure that would happen.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

15 years later? And that's only if you stay put. Take the name and number off your boat and move about a bit and how can CRT ever track you down to remove the boat?

The only solution would be for a CRT hit squad, towing every boat not showing a licence to a secure site and scrapping the boat four weeks later. I'm not sure that would happen.

 

I've a feeling we are going to see a big increase in enforcement, they cannot plead poverty and then spend 'millions' on legal action after 10+ years, they need to take prompt and appropriate (within their powers) action. It won't take many 'enforcements' before the message is received  that they will no longer pussy foot around.

 

Enforcement and boat seizure can be done 'on the cheap', there are ways without dragging it all thru the courts and the cost that entails.

 

A post by Nigel Moore 1/11/16 :

 

 

The cost of taking s.8 cases to court for rubber stamping approvals of the process in the undefended live-aboard cases, is on average around £1,000. A simple Magistrate’s Court hearing would cost maybe less – certainly if undertaken by CaRT’s own legal staff.

 

It is notable that even in those s.8 cases, some enlightened few judges have dictated that the boaters should be given the chance to cough up the owed fees and so avoid the inevitability of removal.

 

On top of the figures arising from successfully carried out s.8 seizures and routine Part 8 procedure cases, there are the costs of legal action in defended cases. These have accounted for costs ranging from around £15,000 to a quarter million per case.

 

Presumably all this expenditure fades into insignificance compared to the annual running budget of some £3 million allocated for licence enforcement. One wonders how much goes towards acquiring new legal staff [ 3 new solicitors were employed recently to add to the existing staff]; certainly, from all accounts, education of enforcement officers has never caught up with requirements, despite earnest promises to the High Court back in 2012.

 

 

And in another post Nigel says :

 

 

 

Section 8 Costs Incurred by C&RT – 31/10/16

 

A large part of the problem though, is that it is a long way from “the cheapest way”. If you look at the statistics, a tiny minority are able to pay the enormously inflated costs of recovering their boats once seized and transported [usually] to the storage places furtherest from their original location.

 

In the year to August 2014 69 boats were removed from CaRT waters under s.8. Many more will have been removed since July 2012 when they came into being, but the figures have not been divulged [although the number 170 was mooted apparently derived from CaRT sources]. Of those, 57 were supposedly removed following court action because live-aboards.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_part_8_civil_procedure#comment-53842 

 

The usual minimum cost of removals using CaRT’s contractors is approximately £5,000. 

 

According to CaRT figures, of these 170 boats, 8 were “disposed of” following the “Torts Act” procedure, presumably sold. Whether the sums recovered by these presumed sales sufficed to cover the costs is not revealed. 

 

By inference, all other un-reclaimed boats were simply destroyed eventually, at yet further cost.

 

Of all these boats, only 9 were reclaimed by the owners, and only 3 were subsequently re-licensed.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_a_breakdown_of_boats#comment-55267 

 

If we then take the total cost of removals in those 2 years, a rough estimation would amount to £850,000 for 170 boat removals [not including storage and any subsequent destruction and disposal costs].

 

The 9 recovered boats would account – on the same basis – for recovery of £45,000, leaving an outlay of unrecovered sums of approximately £805,000. To be generous, supposing that the 8 boats mentioned as being disposed of by sale were sold for sufficient to cover all costs incurred, then another £40,000 can be detracted, leaving an irrecoverable outlay of £765,000.

 

As stated, the end result over these two years of such expenditure was only 3 renewed boat licences.

 

Not “the cheapest way” to enforce boat licensing in my book; while I take the point that fear of seizure will reduce the numbers taking the risk of going unlicensed in the first place – that amounts to over a quarter million per successfully enforced re-licensing. 

 

[magnetman]

I reckon there are too many boats and the only option now is to significantly raise the costs. 

 

There has been a situation where canal boats, which are depreciating assets unless you do significant REAL improvements rather than painting the inside white have been going up on price. 

 

The basic rules of economics are saying that it is too cheap to own a canal boat. 

 

There is a bias. 

 

This needs sorting out otherwise the [word removed] is going to hit the fan. 

 

It seems the CRT are onto it to an extent but I think they might believe in the continuous growth model where more and more boats is desirable. 

 

I think this might be a flawed strategy. 

 

Put the licence costs up a LOT and do it yesterday. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Quattrodave said:

Aye, but if you double the licence fee then I fear there would suddenly be a lot more 'piss-takers' not out of choice but out of necessity.

 

I don't think this would happen. 

 

There are some people in dire straits (not the band) who can't afford any more than the licence fee but this will be a minority. It is a generally accepted principle that you pay for accomodation and if you have no money you go cap in hand to the state and they assist you. 

 

What can potentially happen if boat licences are very cheap (less than a grand a year to live in central London?) is people who are not financially constrained come to boats because it is cool, it is cheap and it is temporary. 

 

This sort of person has no interest in the long term status it makes no difference to them. If it gets expensive or awkward do something else. 

 

 

IF there are vast numbers of people living on boats as their only accomodation who can not afford a significant increase in licence costs then it is far better for them to be state supported.  Otherwise a couple of decades down the line you get slums full of elderly people residing in inadequate half sinking boats. 

 

IF there are vast numbers of people not living on boats who can not afford licence increases then it must be pointed out that if you can't afford it you don't have it. 

 

I can't afford an Embraer legacy 600 so I don't have one. 

 

Simple economics. 

 

 

 

 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

16 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Is that all it is? 

 

Divided by 35,000 that's about £1500 from each boater if the grant is lost completely. So why all the fuss?! 

 

14 hours ago, adam1uk said:

That would be doubling what most people pay, and that’s only the start.  

 
I think you may need to check the Licensing costs if you think £1500 would be doubling what most people pay for a licence each year. A £755 (@50% of £1500) a year licence would be for a 25ft boat. Most boaters are paying well over £1000 a year already and this figure will probably be nearer to @MtB figure next year.

Edited August 31, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I think you may need to check the Licensing costs if you think £1500 would be doubling what most people pay for a licence. A £755 a year licence would be for a 25ft boat. Most boaters are paying well over £1000 a year already and this figure will probably be near to @MtB figure next year.

 

I think that is the point.

The licence would need to be INCREASED by £1500, not increased TO £1500, so if you take the licenece average of £1200 it is just over doubling the licence fee (to £2700)

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think that is the point.

The licence would need to be INCREASED by £1500, not increased TO £1500, so if you take the licenece average of £1200 it is just over doubling the licence fee (to £2700)

Ah, sorry for my mis-reading. Looking back they were on about the current Govt grant if boaters had to pay for it. Apologies to the posters.

P.S

Thought it was a bit strange to think that most people only pay £755 a year for their licence😂

Edited August 31, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Arthur Marshall]

51 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I reckon there are too many boats and the only option now is to significantly raise the costs. 

 

There has been a situation where canal boats, which are depreciating assets unless you do significant REAL improvements rather than painting the inside white have been going up on price. 

 

The basic rules of economics are saying that it is too cheap to own a canal boat. 

 

There is a bias. 

 

This needs sorting out otherwise the [word removed] is going to hit the fan. 

 

It seems the CRT are onto it to an extent but I think they might believe in the continuous growth model where more and more boats is desirable. 

 

I think this might be a flawed strategy. 

 

Put the licence costs up a LOT and do it yesterday. 

 

 

 

I don't think this would happen. 

 

There are some people in dire straits (not the band) who can't afford any more than the licence fee but this will be a minority. It is a generally accepted principle that you pay for accomodation and if you have no money you go cap in hand to the state and they assist you. 

 

What can potentially happen if boat licences are very cheap (less than a grand a year to live in central London?) is people who are not financially constrained come to boats because it is cool, it is cheap and it is temporary. 

 

This sort of person has no interest in the long term status it makes no difference to them. If it gets expensive or awkward do something else. 

 

 

IF there are vast numbers of people living on boats as their only accomodation who can not afford a significant increase in licence costs then it is far better for them to be state supported.  Otherwise a couple of decades down the line you get slums full of elderly people residing in inadequate half sinking boats. 

 

IF there are vast numbers of people not living on boats who can not afford licence increases then it must be pointed out that if you can't afford it you don't have it. 

 

I can't afford an Embraer legacy 600 so I don't have one. 

 

Simple economics. 

 

 

 

 

It's odd that people who support market economics complain bitterly that some things are too cheap (as, they would argue, determined by the market) and so costs should , for no apparent reason, be doubled. Presumably to keep undesirable people from cluttering up the system? Bit like posh people whinging that council house tenants have colour TVs.

However, as CRT is very well aware, their remit is essentially to run a national park, for which the bulk of users don't pay anything except a minute chunk of their taxes. Boaters, as we are constantly reminded, are a very small proportion of users, so why should we pay more than a small proportion of the costs?

The argument that "IF there are vast numbers of people not living on boats who can not afford licence increases then it must be pointed out that if you can't afford it you don't have it" is self evidently nonsense - they are there because they CAN afford it. Deliberately pricing them out of the system just reduces income, though admittedly it might make it look prettier for those who treat it as a holiday treat for a week or two in the summer.

There can't possibly be too many boats, because there they are. Perhaps we should have a poll to decide how many boats are allowed, and who, precisely, should be allowed to have them?

[Quattrodave]

Deliberately pricing people out of their home & way of life is neither right nor is it going to lie well with those it affects.

 

I'm sure most of you will agree with me that you choose this way of life because you love it. Yes the initial out lay maybe cheaper than bricks & mortar but after that is more expensive, licence, insurance, maintenance, repairs, diesel, gas, logs/coal etc etc.  I for one would be furious to be priced out of my home, way of life & social circle and would do everything in my power to push back against the system.  If I asked my employer for an extra £1500 PA because my licence had doubled, what do you think they're answer would be!

 

Edit:

I also suspect, like Mr Khan's ULEZ scheme has devalued many cars, doubling the licence may well devalue boats...

Edited August 31, 2023 by Quattrodave